3 ms·

>Different entities having different amounts of leverage in a negotiation is neither unusual nor inherently immoral. Having a leverage to force an NDA is not i

by alterom 6mo ago

>Different entities having different amounts of leverage in a negotiation is neither unusual nor inherently immoral. Having a leverage to force an NDA is not immoral, but breaking the NDA (no matter how unfair the situation that led to it being signed was) is immoral. Got it.

margalabargala 6mo ago
Sorry, what was forced about the NDA? Did I miss the part where a gun was held to their head? If I offer you money to eat a turd, is it your view that you are being forced to eat the turd?
- alterom 6mo ago
  >If I offer you money to eat a turd, is it your view that you are being forced to eat the turd? Look, I'm not here to kink shame, but that's not the right forum for that sort of fetish. Anyway. You seem to have a trouble understanding the concept of severance. Severance is just a form of compensation for work that was performed. It is not given to someone who did not work for the company. It gets taxed as compensation. It is compensation. There are limits to what an employer can demand of an employee for compensation. There are limits to what employer can make the compensation contingent on. Making a bonus contingent on engaging in your fetishes is definitely not OK. Hope that's clear.
  - margalabargala 6mo ago
    > Look, I'm not here to kink shame > Making a bonus contingent on engaging in your fetishes is definitely not OK And yet here you are shaming me for my kink of making compensation contingent on provided service... Severance is compensation given up front in exchange for the labor/service of signing and following through with the severance agreement. It is not compensation for work that was performed. It is compensation for work that will be performed. It is not something you are entitled to by virtue of having worked somewhere. The company is free to fire you with no severance whatsoever if they want (in the US).
    - alterom 6mo ago
      >And yet here you are shaming me for my kink of making compensation contingent on provided service... The service to get a severance has been provided prior to termination. You're aware that severance is commonly proportional to length of service, right? Not length of expected lifetime after being fired. Keeping one's mouth shut isn't a "service". Neither is a non-compete clause, for that matter (which is illegal where I am), so better figure out how that is possible given that it perfectly fits your definition of "compensation contingent on provided service". >Severance is compensation given up front in exchange for the labor/service of signing and following through with the severance agreement. Calling putting a signature on a piece of paper and staying silent "labor" wins the Orwellian dictionary redefinition of the day for me. Didn't know I was doing labor by doing nothing at all. Pray tell, where do I get to perform such hard labor and get paid handsomely for it? Hope the answer isn't "some of the companies that I performed labor for in the past" (in a normal, human, dictionary sense of the word "labor"), because the payment that you get after performing labor - and only after doing so - is called "compensation".
      - margalabargala 6mo ago
        > The service to get a severance has been provided prior to termination And here is the root of your misunderstanding. You seem to be under the impression that because some companies occasionally scale severance based on tenure, it's comp for work already performed. Severance is like tipping in that it's not required at all. Keeping one's mouth shut is a service. They're paying for it. So would be not competing with the company, if it were legal to enforce. Not sure why you think otherwise, just your personal vibes I guess? Maybe look up what an economic "service" is. Maybe you're confused because as you say, no one has ever offered you money to keep your mouth shut? This service only gets paid for when the recipient has credible things to say. Similarly, some people get paid tons of money to just say their opinion, and here you are doing that labor for free too. The people getting paid have valuable information to offer, which someone else either does or does not want shared.
        alterom 6mo ago
- carefree-bob 6mo ago
  This goes to the issue of whether severance is compensation for past work or consideration for future work, which is a legal gray area. The pro-compensation crowd assumes that because severance is taxed as compensation, that it is payment for past work, and therefore any non-disparagement clauses are illegal. This is something I have seen just stated as if it was an iron-clad fact, rather than something that the courts don't actually uphold at present. The pro-consideration crowd says that while severance is considered compensation after it is granted, the procedure of needing to sign a contract saying "you cannot disparage us if you want this payment" together with the fact that severance is optional and not mandated by law, means that it falls into the consideration category, and your end of the bargain is to not disparage the company if you want the severance, otherwise don't sign the contract and you wont get the severance. That said, what is a more interesting take is whether states should make non-disparagement clauses illegal in the same way that many states have made NDA clauses illegal. That would basically force companies to not demand this in exchange for severance. This has the upside of being legally unambiguous but the downside of needing to actually fight for states to pass these laws, as opposed to just assuming that non-disparagement clauses are illegal under existing laws, which isn't an argument that will find much sympathy in the courts.
  - alterom 6mo ago
    >The pro-compensation crowd assumes that because severance is taxed as compensation, that it is payment for past work, and therefore any non-disparagement clauses are illegal. Here are more considerations: - No person who did no work for the company gets to sign a "non-disparagement" clause, or get a severance. - The severance amount is very commonly proportional to the length of service. Insofar as the words "compensation" and work have meaning, severance is very clearly compensation for past work. Fulfilling a non-disparagement clause is what no sane person would call work, no matter how many Orwellian mental hoops are jumped through to label it as such. >This is something I have seen just stated as if it was an iron-clad fact, rather than something that the courts don't actually uphold at present. Insofar as we're discussing the morality of these clauses, it's iron-clad enough. >That said, what is a more interesting take is whether states should make non-disparagement clauses illegal in the same way that many states have made NDA clauses illegal. The "pro-compensation" crowd argues that this indeed should happen, not that the clauses are currently universally recognized as illegal (the article we're discussing very clearly shows that it's not the case).
- Samson_Corwell 6mo ago
  > Sorry, what was forced about the NDA? > Did I miss the part where a gun was held to their head? She was not forced to sign the NDA. That is correct. Take note, however, that she would still be forcibly silenced by the government if you want this contract upheld. And that will "hold a gun to their head".
  - margalabargala 6mo ago
    Yes, helping enforce valid legal contracts is one of the functions of government. This is a feature, not a bug.

by alterom 6mo ago

margalabargala 6mo ago

Sorry, what was forced about the NDA? Did I miss the part where a gun was held to their head? If I offer you money to eat a turd, is it your view that you are being forced to eat the turd?

alterom 6mo ago
>If I offer you money to eat a turd, is it your view that you are being forced to eat the turd? Look, I'm not here to kink shame, but that's not the right forum for that sort of fetish. Anyway. You seem to have a trouble understanding the concept of severance. Severance is just a form of compensation for work that was performed. It is not given to someone who did not work for the company. It gets taxed as compensation. It is compensation. There are limits to what an employer can demand of an employee for compensation. There are limits to what employer can make the compensation contingent on. Making a bonus contingent on engaging in your fetishes is definitely not OK. Hope that's clear.
- margalabargala 6mo ago
  > Look, I'm not here to kink shame > Making a bonus contingent on engaging in your fetishes is definitely not OK And yet here you are shaming me for my kink of making compensation contingent on provided service... Severance is compensation given up front in exchange for the labor/service of signing and following through with the severance agreement. It is not compensation for work that was performed. It is compensation for work that will be performed. It is not something you are entitled to by virtue of having worked somewhere. The company is free to fire you with no severance whatsoever if they want (in the US).
  - alterom 6mo ago
    >And yet here you are shaming me for my kink of making compensation contingent on provided service... The service to get a severance has been provided prior to termination. You're aware that severance is commonly proportional to length of service, right? Not length of expected lifetime after being fired. Keeping one's mouth shut isn't a "service". Neither is a non-compete clause, for that matter (which is illegal where I am), so better figure out how that is possible given that it perfectly fits your definition of "compensation contingent on provided service". >Severance is compensation given up front in exchange for the labor/service of signing and following through with the severance agreement. Calling putting a signature on a piece of paper and staying silent "labor" wins the Orwellian dictionary redefinition of the day for me. Didn't know I was doing labor by doing nothing at all. Pray tell, where do I get to perform such hard labor and get paid handsomely for it? Hope the answer isn't "some of the companies that I performed labor for in the past" (in a normal, human, dictionary sense of the word "labor"), because the payment that you get after performing labor - and only after doing so - is called "compensation".
    - margalabargala 6mo ago
      > The service to get a severance has been provided prior to termination And here is the root of your misunderstanding. You seem to be under the impression that because some companies occasionally scale severance based on tenure, it's comp for work already performed. Severance is like tipping in that it's not required at all. Keeping one's mouth shut is a service. They're paying for it. So would be not competing with the company, if it were legal to enforce. Not sure why you think otherwise, just your personal vibes I guess? Maybe look up what an economic "service" is. Maybe you're confused because as you say, no one has ever offered you money to keep your mouth shut? This service only gets paid for when the recipient has credible things to say. Similarly, some people get paid tons of money to just say their opinion, and here you are doing that labor for free too. The people getting paid have valuable information to offer, which someone else either does or does not want shared.
      - alterom 6mo ago
carefree-bob 6mo ago
This goes to the issue of whether severance is compensation for past work or consideration for future work, which is a legal gray area. The pro-compensation crowd assumes that because severance is taxed as compensation, that it is payment for past work, and therefore any non-disparagement clauses are illegal. This is something I have seen just stated as if it was an iron-clad fact, rather than something that the courts don't actually uphold at present. The pro-consideration crowd says that while severance is considered compensation after it is granted, the procedure of needing to sign a contract saying "you cannot disparage us if you want this payment" together with the fact that severance is optional and not mandated by law, means that it falls into the consideration category, and your end of the bargain is to not disparage the company if you want the severance, otherwise don't sign the contract and you wont get the severance. That said, what is a more interesting take is whether states should make non-disparagement clauses illegal in the same way that many states have made NDA clauses illegal. That would basically force companies to not demand this in exchange for severance. This has the upside of being legally unambiguous but the downside of needing to actually fight for states to pass these laws, as opposed to just assuming that non-disparagement clauses are illegal under existing laws, which isn't an argument that will find much sympathy in the courts.
- alterom 6mo ago
  >The pro-compensation crowd assumes that because severance is taxed as compensation, that it is payment for past work, and therefore any non-disparagement clauses are illegal. Here are more considerations: - No person who did no work for the company gets to sign a "non-disparagement" clause, or get a severance. - The severance amount is very commonly proportional to the length of service. Insofar as the words "compensation" and work have meaning, severance is very clearly compensation for past work. Fulfilling a non-disparagement clause is what no sane person would call work, no matter how many Orwellian mental hoops are jumped through to label it as such. >This is something I have seen just stated as if it was an iron-clad fact, rather than something that the courts don't actually uphold at present. Insofar as we're discussing the morality of these clauses, it's iron-clad enough. >That said, what is a more interesting take is whether states should make non-disparagement clauses illegal in the same way that many states have made NDA clauses illegal. The "pro-compensation" crowd argues that this indeed should happen, not that the clauses are currently universally recognized as illegal (the article we're discussing very clearly shows that it's not the case).
Samson_Corwell 6mo ago
> Sorry, what was forced about the NDA? > Did I miss the part where a gun was held to their head? She was not forced to sign the NDA. That is correct. Take note, however, that she would still be forcibly silenced by the government if you want this contract upheld. And that will "hold a gun to their head".
- margalabargala 6mo ago
  Yes, helping enforce valid legal contracts is one of the functions of government. This is a feature, not a bug.